A provocative question was raised at a quarterly meeting of the Jain Study Circle: What if a Jain becomes the prime minister of India and he/she is confronted with the problem of terrorism? Do the basic principles of Jainism, that include nonviolence and relativism, present solutions to this problem? The present article is a modest effort to address these questions.(1) - D. C. J.

History is witness that violence has not solved the problems of the world:

"Today, people are becoming increasingly conscious of their distinctive identity not only in terms of race and ethnicity but also in terms of cultural traditions and religious beliefs. While such consciousness of one's heritage and a sense of pride in it serves as a positive force at the personal level, it also frequently leads to schisms and strife at the social level. The make-up of families, communities, cities and nations reflects unprecedented diversity today, and this diversity when not accompanied by a strong spirit of mutual understanding and appreciation, is prone to fuel tensions that result in a variety of violent behaviors. Tragic examples of violence range from mass genocides to school shootings, and from civilians killed in the war zones to spectators dying in game fields. In the very first year of this century, we witnessed the unimaginable destruction of life on September 11, which in turn resulted in retaliation, war and loss of more lives. Violence continues to lead to more violence."(2)

Have 'Just Wars' been effective in addressing the problems facing the world?

"Politically, we have witnessed countless forms of tyranny, prejudice, and the use of malevolent force against indigenous peoples, women, children, ethnic minorities, and whole nations. Since the time of the European Renaissance, it is estimated that some 250 million people have been murdered. Civil wars continue to erupt. And the recent terrorism and grievous hostilities in the Persian Gulf merely reflect long-time trends in name of 'Just War' which must connote, surely, the most ambivalent recommendations for our species.

"Yet, there are other norms, deep-seated behavioral and spiritual paradigms which cry out for altogether different interpretations and conclusions, and which go to the heart of the human potential."(3)

There are no 'just wars':

"According to Umaswati, the author of TATTVAARTH SUTRA, nonviolence is unlimited, tolerance unconditional, and reverence for life supreme. There is no question of 'just war'."(4)

According to Jainism, there are no martyrs:

"The Jains would be the first to admit in accordance with their own doctrine of SYAADAVAAD (qualified assertions) that other religions too might discuss some of these same issues. But what distinguishes the Jain conception of nonviolence from that found in other world religions is that it is truly a personal way of religious discipline. It forbids the taking of all life, however, that might be justified or excused in other religions and warns that nothing short of hell or animal rebirth awaits those who kill or who die while entertaining thoughts of violence. Killing even in self defense or for the 'right cause' would lead to rebirth in hell."(5)

Terrorism and its 'justification':

"As the term 'terrorism' connotes, the key tool of trade for the terrorist is terror. This comes in the form of physical violence or psychological fear. Creating this terror is politically or religiously motivated and relies on publicity to bring about the desired effect (e.g., not only political change, consciousness-raising, an end of oppression, but also genocide, disruption of life, and so on). Terrorism arises out of a need either to respond to perceived oppression and injustice, or to establish a new regime based on a political, economic, or religious ideology. For the terrorist, such acts are the only means to compete and fight against an economically and militarily superior foe!

"There are two major arguments in justifying terrorism. The first argument is the Utilitarian Terrorist argument. ... terrorism is seen as a means to ... gaining greater good (happiness) over the collateral harm (unhappiness) it may inflict on some. ... The second argument in defense of terrorism is called a Relativist Argument: Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter. It is sometimes argued that all nations at one time or another in their history have conducted 'terrorist' attacks and tactics in pursuing their nationalistic goals. According to the victors, individuals who bring about terrorist acts are seen as heroes and martyrs, while according to the vanquished, they are seen as evil villains and cowards who are despised and hated. Consider the Allied attitude toward the 1944 bomb plot against Hitler. To the Allies, it was seen as a great effort of heroic status ... However, the Third Reich and Hitler himself, viewed it negatively as an act of terrorism and treason."(6)

Jain response to terrorism:

"An analysis of Utilitarian argument from the Jain perspective would result in finding fault with this line of thinking. Fundamentally, the Jain would say that an injustice or wrong cannot be 'fixed' by resorting to the killing of a large number of people, especially innocent and non-combatants who are the usual recipient of terrorist attacks. A Jain position would question whether violence is the only means to reverse injustices and oppression, especially given such world-wide global 'overseers' as the United Nations that can be called upon to remedy a bad situation. Clearly, the slaying of thousands (if not millions) of innocent beings can never be the means to an end, regardless of what good it is perceived to bring about. ...

"In response to the Relativist argument, a Jain analysis would focus not on which side is right or wrong, who is hero or villain, but rather on the character, purpose, means, and goal of both the undertaker of violence and the act of violence itself. If the act intentionally brings about the suffering and/or death of one or more innocent (non-combatant) persons, then it is wrong regardless of the nationality or identity of the agent and the purpose and means used to bring about the action. ... If one has properly subdued one's passions and emotions, then a Jain mediator could objectively determine what injustices (if any at all) have been committed or continue to be committed and propose appropriate remedies to resolve the tensions and return society back to a stable condition."(7)

Addressing the root causes of the problems of unfairness and discontent:

"The transformation in the secular world involves the limiting of one's possessions (PARIGRAH PARIMAAN), the stunting of occupational violence (AARAMBHAJ/UDYOGI HIMSA), and the adoption of vows (VRATs) that would embrace the universal truth, starting one person at a time."(8)

Speech and violence:

"The language of politicians is often violent. Such language often causes wars. Wars start in our minds and in our speech. Only later do we send big bombers to the battlefields. So politicians should learn to practice silence, and they should learn what to speak, how to speak and when to speak."(9)

Proper communication can break the cycles of violence and terrorism:

"If we analyze history, we will recognize the fact that events are never isolated. September 11 did not happen out of the blue, without any cause or reason. Why did this happen here? Are there seeds of this event in the Gulf War or in some other war? America is the most powerful country in the world. ... Can this country show a new way? Can America show the way of nonviolence? Remember, nonviolence is the way of the brave and the strong, not of the cowards and the weak.

"America cannot stand alone. We have to move from 'I' to 'us' and 'me' to 'we'. We live in the same one world, on the same planet Earth - our home. If ever there was an urgent message it is the message of one earth. If Americans stand together with the world, then we can create a beautiful world, a world without violence.

"We must recognize that hunger is also violence, starvation is also violence. If people are dying of starvation, the world cannot be at peace. ...

"We are all connected and we stand together in relation to one another. We cannot exist by ourselves. So America and the rest of the world cannot stay separate. 'The West and the Rest' has been the slogan of some western thinkers, business leaders and politicians. The superior West and the inferior Rest. They are trying to globalize western values: everyone must drink Coca Cola, eat MacDonald's, wear blue jeans, watch Hollywood films showing naked bodies in bed with sex scenes and then tell a Muslim that this is the culture of liberty that you should be adopting. This is not the globalization we want. What we do want is the globalization of love, of nonviolence, of peace. ...

"In nonviolence we all live together and depend on each other. When we are violent to others, we are violent to ourselves. When we are attacking others, we are attacking ourselves. Nonviolence is not a matter of convenience. I will talk to my friend - but can I talk to my enemy? Can I listen to people who are in disagreement with me? Can I ask them, 'Why are you so angry? What have I done to you, my brothers and sisters, that you are ready to kill yourself? Have I damaged you in anyway? Have I offended you?' It is very easy for a strong country like the United States to go and bomb a weak country. But talking to an enemy requires real strength and courage."(10)

Analyzing the situations from others' viewpoint is the key to promoting harmony:

"The moral failure to respect the life of others, including life forms other than human, is rooted in dogmatic but mistaken knowledge claims that fail to recognize other legitimate perspectives.(11) Such one-sided perspectives result in destructive actions and violent behaviors. Because existence itself is complex, subtle and many-sided, unless the knowledge on which our actions are based reflects this many-sidedness of reality, it will produce actions that are destructive of existence. ...

"Recognizing that everything can be known from a variety of perspectives leads naturally to a more balanced and less dogmatic understanding of reality. This understanding encompasses the insight that other beings are not 'other' to themselves; that they are themselves just as much as we are ourselves. It is this insight that enables us to see the 'other' on its own terms, from its own side, rather than as merely the 'other', that is opposed to us. And this ability to see the other person as no longer the 'other', but as identical to our own self, underlies the capacity for empathy and sympathy with the other that 'operationalizes' AHIMSA (nonviolence). Because one-sided fanatical views, especially when joined to political ideologies, lead to terrible violence, commitment to AHIMSA requires epistemological respect for all points of view. This respect, based on the ANEKAANTIK (possessing many facets) nature of reality itself, allows dialogue and reconciliation in the quest for truth, ...

"... enlightened conduct is the way of nonviolence or AHIMSA and ... the latter is implied by ANEKAANTAVAAD (multiplicity of viewpoints), ... AHIMSA embodies the realization that all life belongs to the same global family and that to hurt others is to destroy the community of life, the basis of all sacredness. Thus, AHIMSA requires not only that we avoid hurting other living beings, but that we must endeavor to help each other."(12)

History teaches us that dogmatism, mistrust, hatred and violence do not bring about peace and harmony in society. The only effective alternative at the disposal of the people, who are adversely affected by discrimination and oppression, is to adopt nonviolent constructive means like Mahatma Gandhi's SATYAAGRAH (passive resistance) and noncooperation. Such methods entail considerable self-sacrifice but the ultimate reward is worth it. Remember that Mahatma Gandhi did not look up to the rich and powerful for help. His method was one of self-dependence which is genuine freedom of the individual and society. Further, Mahatma Gandhi did not indulge in charades and exhibitionism in the name of 'good causes'. - D. C. J.

Footnotes:

1. 'A Story From Bhagwati Sutra: Nonviolence And Martyrdom', published in Jain Study Circular of July 2003, presents the Jain perspective of violence in war. Back up

2. Tara Sethia in 'Introduction', AAJ, pages 1-2. Back up

3. Michael Tobias in 'Foreword', AAJ, pages xi-xii. Back up

4. Nathmal Tatia in Translator's Introduction to Umaswati's TATTVAARTH SUTRA, 'That Which Is', Harper Collins, San Francisco and London, 1994, page xxi. Back up

5. Padmanabh S. Jaini in 'Ahimsa and "Just War" in Jainism', AAJ, page 60. Back up

6. Kim Skoog in 'The Jaina Response To Terrorism', AAJ, pages 25-27. Back up

7. Kim Skoog in 'The Jaina Response To Terrorism', AAJ, pages 41-42. Back up

8. Michael Tobias in 'Foreword', AAJ, page xiii. Back up

9. Satish Kumar in 'Nonviolence for All', AAJ, page 64. Back up

10. Satish Kumar in 'Nonviolence for All', AAJ, pages 67-69. Back up

11. On account of clouded and tainted perception like that of an intoxicated person, an individual loses the ability to distinguish between true (real SAT) and untrue (unreal ASAT). Consequently his/her knowledge becomes defiled. - TATTVAARTH SUTRA by Acharya Umaswati, Chapter 1, sutra 32, Jain Study Circular, January 2004, page 9. Back up

12. John M. Kollar in 'Why is Anekantavada important?', AAJ, page 85-87. Back up

Home / email us